| Literature DB >> 35669948 |
Ciana M Bowhay1, Tryon A Wickersham2, Ra'Sheedah Richardson3, Kathrin A Dunlap2.
Abstract
Many animal science students have little exposure to working livestock production systems prior to college. As such, they can lack insight into day-to-day challenges and rationale behind decision making in these systems, opening the door for the adoption of misconceptions frequently promoted in the popular press. In addition, students identify a lack of first-hand knowledge and experience in the industry as a challenge to their educational success. Field trips stimulate interest and motivation, provide context for learning, and influence long-term career goals, but are underutilized in higher education. The potential impact of such experiences prompted the creation of the Texas Panhandle Beef Production Tour, a 2-credit hour compressed course. Students on this tour visited beef production sites in the Texas Panhandle ranging from cow-calf operations, to feedlots and packing plants. To cement learning through reflection, students responded to a series of questions before, during, and after visiting these sites to probe preconceptions, observations, and outcomes of the experience. We performed a retroactive qualitative evaluation of these reflections (n = 22) to determine cogent themes. Emergent themes included surprise at the intensive systems of data collection and management and the level of technology used at each site. Cattle were calmer and more comfortable than expected at the feedlots and packing plants. Students expressed new appreciation and understanding of course material and a desire to share their insights with others after completing the tour. Finally, participants gained a broader view of industry opportunities and returned with renewed motivation to pursue additional hands-on opportunities. Participation in this course provided valuable insight into the livestock production industry and motivated students to explore new career options and address their own preconceptions of the industry through independent inquiry. The creation of similar courses may be useful to address misconceptions, create personal connections with course material, and broaden career interests in animal science students.Entities:
Keywords: compressed course; experiential learning; fieldtrip; high-impact learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35669948 PMCID: PMC9162385 DOI: 10.1093/tas/txac054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Anim Sci ISSN: 2573-2102
Beef production tour itinerary1
| Date | Location | Host | Industry segment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monday, 14th May | |||
| 0530 | Depart – College Station, TX | - | |
| 1700 | Tulia, TX | Cactus – Cattle Feeders | Feedlot |
| 1900 | Amarillo, TX | Merck Animal Health | Allied Industry |
| Tuesday, 15th May | |||
| 0900 | Friona, TX | Cargill Meat Solution | Packer |
| 1300 | Hereford, TX | Westway Feed Products | Allied Industry |
| 1600 | Hereford, TX | OT Feedyard | Feedlot |
| 1900 | Amarillo, TX | Anipro/Xtraformance Feeds | Allied Industry |
| Wednesday, 16th May | |||
| 0830 | Dumas, TX | Canadian River | Geological Feature |
| 0900 | Dumas, TX | Exell Ranch | Cow/Calf & Stocker |
| 1300 | Dalhart, TX | Cargill - SweetBran | Allied Industry |
| 1500 | Dalhart, TX | Five Rivers | Feedlot |
| 1900 | Amarillo, TX | Cadillac Ranch | Cultural Icon |
| 2000 | Amarillo, TX | Blue Sky Burgers | Retail |
| Thursday, 17th May | |||
| 0830 | Claude, TX | Palo Duro Canyon | Geological Feature |
| 1300 | Throckmorton, TX | R.A. Brown Ranch | Seedstock |
| 2300 | Arrive – College Station, TX | ||
The field-trip covered approximately 2250 km.
Demographic information
| Frequency total | Total, %1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 7 | 32 |
| Female | 15 | 68 |
| Year | ||
| PhD | 4 | 18 |
| MS | 8 | 36 |
| Senior | 13 | 59 |
| Junior | 2 | 9 |
| Major | ||
| Animal science | 21 | 95.5 |
| Biomedical science | 1 | 4.5 |
| Origin | ||
| Domestic | 20 | 91 |
| International | 2 | 9 |
Percent totals were calculated by taking the frequency total and dividing by the total number of individuals, n = 22.
Student responses to reflection prompt before embarking on the Texas Panhandle Beef Production Tour
| Prompt and response | Frequency total | Student total, %1 |
|---|---|---|
| What do you hope to gain from this trip? | ||
| Firsthand knowledge of the livestock industry | 6 | 27.3 |
| Networking, job, or internship opportunities | 6 | 27.3 |
| Clarify career goals | 4 | 18.2 |
| 2 |
| |
| What is a challenge preventing you from getting everything you can out of your education? | ||
| Lack of hands-on or industry experience | 7 | 31.8 |
| Lack of knowledge or confidence about careers in the industry | 5 | 22.7 |
| Personal responsibilities | 3 | 13.6 |
| |
| |
| What do you see as a solution to your educational challenges? | ||
| Seek out hands-on or industry opportunities | 11 | 50.0 |
| Apply for graduate school, research, or internship opportunities | 2 | 9.1 |
| |
| |
| What are you most excited to do on this trip? | ||
| Apply knowledge from classes to real-world scenarios | 5 | 22.7 |
| Learn about different sectors of the beef industry | 3 | 13.6 |
| Network with industry professionals | 2 | 9.1 |
| |
| |
| What does a packing plant look like? | ||
| Huge factory | 10 | 45.5 |
| Fast-paced assembly line | 6 | 27.2 |
| Cramped and miserable | 5 | 22.7 |
| |
| |
| What challenges does a packing plant face? | ||
| Product safety, biosecurity, and sanitation | 10 | 45.5 |
| Poor public perception | 5 | 22.7 |
| Animal health and welfare | 4 | 18.2 |
| Finding, training, and maintaining employees | 4 | 18.2 |
| |
| |
| What does a feedlot look like? | ||
| Cramped, dusty pens of cattle | 13 | 59.1 |
| |
| |
| What challenges does a feedlot face? | ||
| Cattle health and welfare | 13 | 59.1 |
| Facility limitations | 11 | 50.0 |
| Financial issues | 8 | 36.4 |
| Public perception | 6 | 27.2 |
| |
| |
| What does a large ranch look like? | ||
| Pastures, expansive space | 14 | 63.6 |
| Cows and calves in fields | 5 | 22.7 |
| Corporate owned | 2 | 9.1 |
| |
| |
| What challenges does a large ranch face? | ||
| Animal factors | 15 | 68.2 |
| Financial challenges | 13 | 59.1 |
| Weather or environment | 11 | 50.0 |
| |
| |
Note. Individual responses to prompts were clustered into categories by theme, counts were made.
Student percent totals were calculated by taking the response statement count and dividing it by total number of students (n = 22)
Item response totals do not match a number of students (n = 22) as student responses may fall into more than one category, or they did not respond to the prompt.
Frequencies of students’ individual response statements by prompt and responses regarding observations during the Texas Panhandle Beef Production Tour
| Prompt and response | Frequency Total | Student total, %1 |
|---|---|---|
| Packing plant challenges | ||
| Worker hiring, retention and training | 18 | 81.8 |
| Oversized carcasses | 6 | 27.3 |
| Plant security, safety, and sanitation | 4 | 18.2 |
| Protecting reputation | 3 | 13.6 |
| 2 |
| |
| Packing plant observations and surprises | ||
| Organized, efficient and fast-paced | 13 | 59.1 |
| 2000+ employees | 11 | 50.0 |
| Huge, complex | 10 | 45.5 |
| Process 5000 cattle per day | 8 | 36.4 |
| Manual labor | 7 | 31.8 |
| High tech | 6 | 27.3 |
| Use for all byproducts | 4 | 18.2 |
| Clean | 3 | 13.6 |
| |
| |
| Feedlot challenges | ||
| Maintaining cattle health | 11 | 50.0 |
| Filling labor positions | 7 | 31.8 |
| Financial challenges | 6 | 27.3 |
| Purchasing uniform, healthy cattle | 6 | 27.3 |
| Negative public perception | 5 | 22.7 |
| Environment and weather | 4 | 18.2 |
| |
| |
| Feedlot observations and surprises | ||
| Technologically advanced | 11 | 50.0 |
| System precision, complexity, and efficiency | 9 | 40.9 |
| Clean and calm facilities | 9 | 40.9 |
| Robust research programs on feedlots | 8 | 36.4 |
| Knowledgeable employees | 5 | 22.7 |
| Secure, well-tracked medication use | 3 | 13.6 |
| Healthy comfortable cattle | 3 | 13.6 |
| Immense amount of data collection | 3 | 13.6 |
| |
| |
| Ranch observations and surprises | ||
| Huge amount of data collected | 11 | 50.0 |
| Large, family run using horses | 3 | 13.6 |
| Always improving | 2 | 9.1 |
| |
| |
Note. Individual responses to prompts were clustered into categories by theme, counts were made.
Student percent totals were calculated by taking the response statement count and dividing it by total number of students (n = 22)
Item response totals do not match number of students (n = 22) as student responses may fall into more than one category, or they did not respond to the prompt.
Frequencies of students’ individual response statements by prompt and responses regarding post-tour perspectives
| Prompt and response | Frequency total | Student total, %1 |
|---|---|---|
| What did enjoy most about this trip | ||
| First-hand knowledge of industry | 8 | 36.4 |
| Opportunity to apply classroom knowledge in a real-world setting | 6 | 27.3 |
| Site visits | 5 | 22.7 |
| Networking opportunities | 5 | 22.7 |
| 2 |
| |
| What did you get out of this trip? | ||
| New appreciation and respect for livestock industry | 9 | 40.9 |
| New perspective on how the beef industry works together | 9 | 40.9 |
| Broadened view of industry opportunities | 8 | 36.4 |
| Clarified career goals | 5 | 22.7 |
| Corrected some of my misconceptions | 2 | 9.1 |
| |
| |
| How have your views on animal science changed? | ||
| New appreciation and understanding after seeing animal science in action | 8 | 36.4 |
| Identified area of interest for future | 3 | 13.6 |
| |
| |
| What will you do as a result of this trip? | ||
| Take steps to achieve career goals | 18 | 81.8 |
| Teach others about what I learned | 10 | 45.5 |
| Seek out more first-hand knowledge and experiences | 7 | 31.8 |
| Try to understand, ask more questions instead of making assumptions | 4 | 18.2 |
| |
| |
Note. Individual responses to prompts were clustered into categories by theme, counts were made.
Student percent totals were calculated by taking the response statement count and dividing by total number of students (n = 22)
Item response totals do not match number of students (n = 22) as student responses may fall into more than one category, or they did not respond to the prompt.